linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:00:44 -0800
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
Cc:	hjk@...sjkoch.de, lm-sensors@...sensors.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Add support for gpiodef

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:35:57PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 06:13:45PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 02:51:01PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> > > It is necessary for end users when they are using the gpio pins
> >> > connected to the
> >> > > fan controller. There is a separate gpiodef register provided, but it is
> >> > unused
> >> > > under the usual circumstances and that is probably the reason why this
> >> > feature
> >> > > has not been added before. It is necessary for our board to function
> >> > properly.
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp <lpapp@....org>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >  Documentation/hwmon/max6650 |   5 +++
> >> > >  drivers/hwmon/max6650.c     | 107
> >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > >  2 files changed, 112 insertions(+)
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/Documentation/hwmon/max6650 b/Documentation/hwmon/max6650
> >> > > index 58d9644..32c69a8 100644
> >> > > --- a/Documentation/hwmon/max6650
> >> > > +++ b/Documentation/hwmon/max6650
> >> > > @@ -39,6 +39,11 @@ pwm1               rw      relative speed (0-255),
> >> > 255=max. speed.
> >> > >  fan1_div     rw      sets the speed range the inputs can handle. Legal
> >> > >                       values are 1, 2, 4, and 8. Use lower values for
> >> > >                       faster fans.
> >> > > +gpio0        rw      sets the gpio 0 PIN. Legal values are 0, 1, 2, and
> >> > 3.
> >> > > +gpio1        rw      sets the gpio 1 PIN. Legal values are 0, 1, 2, and
> >> > 3.
> >> > > +gpio2        rw      sets the gpio 2 PIN. Legal values are 0, 1, 2, and
> >> > 3.
> >> > > +gpio3        rw      sets the gpio 3 PIN. Legal values are 0, and 1.
> >> > > +gpio4        rw      sets the gpio 4 PIN. Legal values are 0, and 1.
> >> > >
> >> > gpio pins should be exported through the gpio subsystem, usually with a
> >> > gpio
> >> > driver. In this case, it may be acceptable to have the driver register with
> >> > the gpio subsystem to export the pins. Using local sysfs attributes is
> >> > wrong
> >> > and unacceptable.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In short: I am not sure.
> >>
> >> My concern is that these are not generic gpio pins. They seem to have chip
> >> specific functionality, like alarm, full-on, and clock (internal and
> >> external). Strictly speaking, one could even mention that to expose the
> >> GPIODEF register as is without splitting it into five separate gpio pin
> >> entries. Even those five pins behave slightly differently.
> >>
> >> I considered both, but these are the reasons why I decided to keep it chip
> >> specific rather than separately in a generic subsystem.
> >>
> > If the registers are not really gpio pins but are needed / used for chip
> > configuration, the other option would be to configure the values using platform
> > data and/or devicetree data. Either case, exporting the pins to user space via
> > sysfs attribute files in the device directory is the wrong approach.
> 
> Hmm, that would not allow dynamic settings on its own - if I am not
> mistaken - which we are in need of. I might be mistaken tough, so
> please forgive my shortcomings.
> 
> I was also thinking of module parameters before, as well. Perhaps that
> is a better approach. I am not sure. What do you think about it?
> 
Problem with that is that it applies to all MAX6650's.

What are those pins used for ?
If they need to be set at runtime, gpio may be a choice after all. 
I think I may need to get a better understanding of your use case.

Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/